Carbon Footprint of Movie Production Location Choice: the Real Cost The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Buchanan, Carolyn. 2016. Carbon Footprint of Movie Production Location Choice: the Real Cost. Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33797344 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ! ! Carbon Footprint of Movie Production Location Choice: The Real Cost Carolyn Buchanan A Thesis in the Field of Sustainability and Environmental Management for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May, 2016 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Abstract The film and television sector is the number one industry contributor to Los Angeles air pollution (University of Southern California, 2006). Yet, 39 states and many countries offer film incentives, in a quest to lure film productions to locations outside of California. These incentives have been successful at convincing film productions to leave California. In 2013, there were 108 major feature films produced by the six largest studios in Los Angeles, but only 15 of those productions were kept in California (Film L.A., 2013). Studios are willing to add the multitude of logistics and financial resources necessary to take film production out of California because the financial incentives to do so can be higher than 50% of the relocated production budget, far exceeding the additional cost. However, the studios, and the states and countries offering millions of dollars to the productions, are not considering the carbon impact when transporting film production. My research compares the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a Los Angeles based studio production shot in Los Angeles, Boston, and Vancouver, Canada. The objective of this research is to provide sustainability information that is needed to inform studios, states and countries considering film incentives of the complete cost of the incentives. I hypothesized that transferring production to cities outside Los Angeles results in substantial hidden environmental costs in added GHG emissions. An actual $71.7 million dollar film production plan was used to calculate the carbon costs for three various production locations. Transportation used for the shoot was categorized by air transportation and shipping. Air transportation was then analyzed ! ! ! ! ! ! to determine the number of round trip flights per shoot location, and then greenhouse gas calculations were run to determine the carbon footprint for these flights. Greenhouse gas emissions for shipping were also calculated per production and the greenhouse gas calculations were run. The flight and shipping greenhouse gas calculations were then totaled per location. Last, the emissions were monetized. These analyses showed that flights of the cast and crew, and shipping of goods for a production shot in Boston, can have five times the greenhouse gas emissions as the same production being shot in Los Angeles. Since Vancouver is an established film production market, a Vancouver production results in less flight segments, shipping, and thus less greenhouse gas emissions than Boston, but it is twice as much as a Los Angeles production. This research can show film studios the carbon footprint implications of “runaway” (films produced outside of California) productions, at a time when consumers are becoming increasingly interested in corporate!sustainability. Moreover, it will inform film incentive policy makers by highlighting the carbon footprint that comes with importing film production from California. ! ! ! ! ! ! Acknowledgements Thank you to Mark Leighton, my Thesis Director, and research guru, for his time and guidance with my thesis. Thank you to my children for being very patient with my abbreviated fun time, as I wrote my thesis. I also thank Suzanne Matulis for her guidance in graph development. v ! ! ! ! ! ! Table of Contents Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………..……….….v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..…......viii List of Figures………………………………………………………………....…….…ix I. Introduction………………………………………………………….……...……...1 Research Significance and Objectives…………………………………….……1 Background………………………………………………………………….….2 Sustainability Reporting on Carbon Footprints in the Film Industry…….…….2 Carbon Footprints by the Six Major Studios………………….………..3 20th Century Fox………………………………………………..3 The Walt Disney Company…………………………………….3 Paramount………………………………………………………4 Sony………………………………………………………….…4 Time Warner……………………………………………….…..4 Universal…………………………………………………….…4 Studios Efforts to Decrease Return Shipping and Landfill Rates...…………....5 Film Production Life Cycle Analysis/Carbon Footprint………………….……6 Incentives to Produce Films in Alternative Areas………………………….…..8 State Film Incentives………………………………………….……….10 Out of Country Film Incentives: Canada…...…………….……….......13 Film Incentive Impact on States……………………………………….……...15 Current Location Production Practices…………………………………....…..16 ! "#! ! ! ! ! ! Research Questions, Hypothesis and Specific Aims...………………………..17 II. Methods……….………………………………………….……………………...19 Research Design……………………………………………...……………….19 Assumptions About Flights………………………………………...…........…21 Methods and Analysis………………………………………………………...22 III. Results...………………………………………………….….…………………..25 t CO2e Due to Flights...…………………...………..…………………………29 t CO2e Due to Corporate Flights..………………......………………....……..31 t CO2e Due to Shipping..…….………………..……………………….……..34 t CO2e per Market/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comparison…….…………..34 Monetary Value of CO2e for Flights and Shipping.…..…….….………..…...37 IV. Discussion…..………………………………………….…………….…………..38 Conclusions………………………………………….……………….………38 Research Limitations and Assumptions.……………….……….……………39 Recommendations…………………………………….………………….…..41 References…………………………………………………….…………….………..46 ! "##! ! ! ! ! ! List of Tables Table 1 State film incentive programs and dollars offered.…………………………11 Table 2 State film incentive overview………………………………………….…...12 Table 3 Canada film incentive…………………………………….………………...14 ! "###! ! ! ! ! ! List of Figures Figure 1 Conventional pollutant emissions for selected sectors within the Los Angeles metro area.…..……………...……………………………….9 Figure 2 Environmental articles in film trade publications……………………..…10 Figure 3 Projected flights for Boston production……………………..…………...25 Figure 4 Projected flights for Vancouver production……………………...………26 Figure 5 Projected flights for Los Angeles production……………………..……..27 Figure 6 Projected shipping per production………………………………..……...28 Figure 7 t CO2e projections based on flights for Boston………………..………...29 Figure 8 t CO2e projections based on flights for Vancouver production.………...30 Figure 9 t CO2e projections based on flights for Los Angeles production..............31 Figure 10 t CO2e due to corporate flights for a Boston production.........................32 Figure 11 t CO2e due to corporate flights for a Vancouver production..………….32 Figure 12 t CO2e due to corporate flights for a Los Angeles production..…...…...33 Figure 13 t CO2e projected for shipping per location.…………………….….........34 Figure 14 t CO2e projected for flights and shipping for Boston..……….………...35 Figure 15 t CO2e projected for flights and shipping for Vancouver production….36 Figure 16 t CO2e projected for flights and shipping for Vancouver.…..……..…..36 Figure 17 Monetized CO2e for flights and shipping for $100 million film budget………………………………………………………………….37 Figure 18 Image of 3-D video technology.………………………………….….....44 ! #$! ! ! ! ! ! Chapter I Introduction The film and television sector is the number one industry contributor to Los Angeles air pollution (University of Southern California, 2006). Yet, 39 states and many countries offer film incentives, in a quest to lure film productions to locations outside of California. These incentives have been successful at convincing film productions to leave California. In 2013, there were 108 major feature films produced by the six largest studios in Los Angeles, but only 15 of those productions were kept in California (Film L.A., 2013). Research Significance and Objectives This study will provide states with film incentives, or those considering film incentives, the “cost” of the added carbon footprint being brought to the area resulting from their incentive to lure the film industry. In addition, understanding the impact a film’s production location has on the carbon footprint it engenders, allows film studios to consider environmental sustainability, in addition to financial savings when considering production locations. My primary research objectives are: • To evaluate the carbon footprint comparison of flights and shipping of one film produced in various locations for studio practices. • To advise on policy where film subsidies (incentives) are offered or being considered. ! %! ! ! ! ! ! Background Environmental and social sustainability is a necessary part of the corporate world. While financial sustainability is easily tallied, the environmental and social sustainability costs and benefits can have just as large of an impact on a corporation. Consumers are increasingly aware of corporate sustainability. Unsustainable practices create a liability for a company with